Male Centric Autism Narrative and Undiagnosed Autistic Women
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
05 Jan 2015, 8:11 pm
Compared to sensory hypersensitivity, there is much less evidence that more emotional sensitivity means more autistic.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
05 Jan 2015, 9:00 pm
btbnnyr wrote:
Compared to sensory hypersensitivity, there is much less evidence that more emotional sensitivity means more autistic.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
"There is more evidence that it means less autistic." Where. I see no such thing. Instead of just throwing numerical correlations around when it doesn't even make sense to assign numbers in the first place, where is the population with higher emotional sensitivity more autistic. Both more and less can be associated with autism. Not to mention that the data is obviously biased in the first place for numerous reasons. Look at intelligence, both high intelligence and low intelligence are correlated with autism.
_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes
Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
05 Jan 2015, 9:03 pm
Ganondox wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Compared to sensory hypersensitivity, there is much less evidence that more emotional sensitivity means more autistic.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
"There is more evidence that it means less autistic." Where. I see no such thing. Instead of just throwing numerical correlations around when it doesn't even make sense to assign numbers in the first place, where is the population with higher emotional sensitivity more autistic. Both more and less can be associated with autism. Not to mention that the data is obviously biased in the first place for numerous reasons. Look at intelligence, both high intelligence and low intelligence are correlated with autism.
You can look yourself in the large social cognition literature, I generally don't post links to references, as it is better to search the literature oneself and get a broad view on the state of research on a topic than to see a few references. For undiagnosed populations, you can look at BAP or autistic traits in general population literature. There are also family studies and lots of baby or child siblings studies. Also useful to look at general empathy literature, looking at different aspects of empathy, empathy in neurotypicals, how empathy is related to personal distress, etc.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
05 Jan 2015, 9:11 pm
NiceCupOfTea wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
^^^How to distinguish this kind of person from shy introverted submissive neurotypical female?
I can think of a joke to answer this, but it probably wouldn't go down a storm on this forum, even if I left out the f word. So I reckon I'll play it safe and just not tell it.
I want to know the joke.
Quote:
In fact I sometimes think I'm the only non huggy-wuggy female on this site.
Well there's me, but I'm not going to be on here much anymore.
As for the empathy thing, here's my hypothesis: I think it's largely a bunch of b.s. People mostly "empathize" according to a script, according to what they expect other people to feel rather than what they actually feel. There is some true empathy when it comes to very basic emotions, people who know each other well and are in tune with what they truly feel, but I'm living proof that NTs trip up when it comes to empathizing with someone who doesn't feel according to their expectations.
NTs may seem to be better at empathy because they are more inclined towards learning, internalizing, and enacting social scripts, not because their emotional intelligence is actually better. They internalize it so well, that they actually feel what the script says they should feel in a given situation. They might feel completely differently in the same situation if they had internalized the script of a different culture. They even internalize certain physical gestures that are connected with the different emotions. Then the other people respond to this scripted emotion according to the scripted response, and they're all fooled into believing that actual empathy has taken place.
But when you get them telling you how you feel, and refusing to believe you when you say otherwise, you come to see that their "empathy" is a joke. Then there is their mysterious lack of empathy for people who are in different social groups than they are. When you get someone who hasn't internalized that script, and has more individualized emotional experiences, they do not empathize with that person. Sometimes people try to empathize based on how they would feel in a similar situation; given someone with a different personality, this can also create an empathy fail.
05 Jan 2015, 9:13 pm
btbnnyr wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Compared to sensory hypersensitivity, there is much less evidence that more emotional sensitivity means more autistic.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
"There is more evidence that it means less autistic." Where. I see no such thing. Instead of just throwing numerical correlations around when it doesn't even make sense to assign numbers in the first place, where is the population with higher emotional sensitivity more autistic. Both more and less can be associated with autism. Not to mention that the data is obviously biased in the first place for numerous reasons. Look at intelligence, both high intelligence and low intelligence are correlated with autism.
You can look yourself in the large social cognition literature, I generally don't post links to references, as it is better to search the literature oneself and get a broad view on the state of research on a topic than to see a few references.
I've read a bunch of stuff, maybe not social cognition literature but other autism related stuff, that says variety of things, but it doesn't point to more emotionally sensitive as being less autistic. That's what I've got from reading on my own. Also, the social cognition literature tends to be biased because it's interpreted from the standpoint where it already assumes autistics are less emotional or whatnot. Generally what I see is older studies making the claim, some newer studies supporting the claim, and other newer studies open to the idea the initial conclusion was wrong finding out how the study they investigated was flawed and after correcting the flaw get very different results. As Michelle Dawson (think it was here) said, if you give a blind person a visual IQ test, he's going to come up with a low IQ.
_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes
Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
05 Jan 2015, 10:15 pm
Ganondox wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Compared to sensory hypersensitivity, there is much less evidence that more emotional sensitivity means more autistic.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
"There is more evidence that it means less autistic." Where. I see no such thing. Instead of just throwing numerical correlations around when it doesn't even make sense to assign numbers in the first place, where is the population with higher emotional sensitivity more autistic. Both more and less can be associated with autism. Not to mention that the data is obviously biased in the first place for numerous reasons. Look at intelligence, both high intelligence and low intelligence are correlated with autism.
You can look yourself in the large social cognition literature, I generally don't post links to references, as it is better to search the literature oneself and get a broad view on the state of research on a topic than to see a few references.
I've read a bunch of stuff, maybe not social cognition literature but other autism related stuff, that says variety of things, but it doesn't point to more emotionally sensitive as being less autistic. That's what I've got from reading on my own. Also, the social cognition literature tends to be biased because it's interpreted from the standpoint where it already assumes autistics are less emotional or whatnot. Generally what I see is older studies making the claim, some newer studies supporting the claim, and other newer studies open to the idea the initial conclusion was wrong finding out how the study they investigated was flawed and after correcting the flaw get very different results. As Michelle Dawson (think it was here) said, if you give a blind person a visual IQ test, he's going to come up with a low IQ.
I think that you should still read scientific literature on this topic, if you are interested in it.
Regarding bias in research conclusions, it is not as biased one way as you think, researchers in this field do consider multiple interpretations of data, and the ones that don't make it into literature are the ones that lack evidence from the numbers (the focus is on numbers, collected from computerized behavioral expts, eeg, meg, fmri, etc).
Regarding research participants, there are lots of presentations amongst HFA participants in autism research studies, no individual is ackshuly stereotypical this or that, and the group is not one stereotype.
Other issues I take into account when researching brain topics:
1) Subjective accounts are poor ways to understand brain functions, subjective eggsperience of physical world are better clue to real operations of physical world than subjective eggsperiences of mental states are to real operations of brain.
2) I make no value judgments about what is better eggsplanation of phenomena based on what seems generally better to people or society, e.g. someone who is highly empathic is not better than someone who is less empathic or has no empathy at all.
3) When prioritizing the weight of study results, I usually assign more to ones containing both brain and behavioral measures, not one only, and also more to ones involving live interaction over non-interactive. I assign low weight to ones that ask autistic children to verbally describe something and rate the quality of the verbally described thing, that is like michelle dawson's visual iq for blind test.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
05 Jan 2015, 10:50 pm
I think calling the current situation 'male centric' is like calling testosterone 'male centric'. Of course it is when you have a clinically recorded 4:1 ratio of ASD, males to female.
But I agree that there is very likely large scale undiagnosed ASD in women. If ASD came from one cause and had one type of genetic signature I would not question the 4:1 ratio as much. But the evidence leans towards multiple causes including environmental poisonings and multiple configurations genetically.
05 Jan 2015, 10:58 pm
btbnnyr wrote:
I think that overwhelming emotional distress due to contagion from other people is not really empathy, as it is self-centered response, the person focusing on one's own hyperemotional responses instead of other person, lacking cognitive empathy, and unable to engage in empathic behaviors. In a child who has such responses, it seems that they would appear hyperemotional often, but without other-oriented social empathic behaviors like comforting people, and probably not practical help due being overwhelmed by their own emotions. The whole thing seems like a low-level emotional contagion amplified by emotional dysregulation. The contagion itself is initial sign of affective empathy, but emotional dysregulation takes over quickly to prevent socially adaptive affective empathy that allows one to connect emotionally with others and strenghten relationships instead of emotional distress alone, such behaviors possibly alienating others in the process.
I would disagree that it is not empathy; as I do not define empathy as only things that are other-oriented social empathetic behavior. I do include affective empathy, and feeling how others feel in empathy. It is however not socially adaptive, I agree.
In my view, what I'm discussing is a potential subgroup of people (who I do not think have been studied, I haven't found studies on it), who have abnormally high affective empathy - such abnormally high affective empathy that how high it is on its own starts to cause both positive and negative effects, low cognitive empathy, and does not have socially adaptive empathy. They feel strong compassion, as well as feelings of others, but because of their emotional responses (positive and negative), their lack of cognitive empathy, and such, it being socially adaptive, is missing.
In some cases, people see compassion, and miss the fact that the person isn't showing it in any sort of normal way - I cannot say how frequently, just that I've seen this on more than one occurrence.
I think it would be interesting to actually do or find studies on people of this sort, and see if there is anything related to abnormally high affective empathy when it comes to actual studiable autism stuff.
05 Jan 2015, 11:06 pm
btbnnyr wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Compared to sensory hypersensitivity, there is much less evidence that more emotional sensitivity means more autistic.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
There is more evidence that it means less autistic.
In both physical and cognitive science, there are rarely clear-cut countereggsamples of the kind that one new thing really disproves a theory. That is a myth. I have done a lot of both kinds of science, my background being physical, and that is not the norm in science. Instead, there is just accumulation of evidence one way, the other way, or some other other way, etc. Occasionally, there is big clear breakthrough evidence as in the X-ray crystallography evidence that the ribosome is a ribozyme instead of a protein enzyme, since there was only an adenine of RNA close enough to the catalytic site to effect catalysis, and no amino acid functional groups close enough. But even that is not entirely clear-cut, because it can be argued that what was crystallized in the expt is not what is found in biological systems, but the weight of evidence can still be in favor of ribozyme based on results from other approaches.
"There is more evidence that it means less autistic." Where. I see no such thing. Instead of just throwing numerical correlations around when it doesn't even make sense to assign numbers in the first place, where is the population with higher emotional sensitivity more autistic. Both more and less can be associated with autism. Not to mention that the data is obviously biased in the first place for numerous reasons. Look at intelligence, both high intelligence and low intelligence are correlated with autism.
You can look yourself in the large social cognition literature, I generally don't post links to references, as it is better to search the literature oneself and get a broad view on the state of research on a topic than to see a few references.
I've read a bunch of stuff, maybe not social cognition literature but other autism related stuff, that says variety of things, but it doesn't point to more emotionally sensitive as being less autistic. That's what I've got from reading on my own. Also, the social cognition literature tends to be biased because it's interpreted from the standpoint where it already assumes autistics are less emotional or whatnot. Generally what I see is older studies making the claim, some newer studies supporting the claim, and other newer studies open to the idea the initial conclusion was wrong finding out how the study they investigated was flawed and after correcting the flaw get very different results. As Michelle Dawson (think it was here) said, if you give a blind person a visual IQ test, he's going to come up with a low IQ.
I think that you should still read scientific literature on this topic, if you are interested in it.
Regarding bias in research conclusions, it is not as biased one way as you think, researchers in this field do consider multiple interpretations of data, and the ones that don't make it into literature are the ones that lack evidence from the numbers (the focus is on numbers, collected from computerized behavioral expts, eeg, meg, fmri, etc).
Regarding research participants, there are lots of presentations amongst HFA participants in autism research studies, no individual is ackshuly stereotypical this or that, and the group is not one stereotype.
Other issues I take into account when researching brain topics:
1) Subjective accounts are poor ways to understand brain functions, subjective eggsperience of physical world are better clue to real operations of physical world than subjective eggsperiences of mental states are to real operations of brain.
2) I make no value judgments about what is better eggsplanation of phenomena based on what seems generally better to people or society, e.g. someone who is highly empathic is not better than someone who is less empathic or has no empathy at all.
3) When prioritizing the weight of study results, I usually assign more to ones containing both brain and behavioral measures, not one only, and also more to ones involving live interaction over non-interactive. I assign low weight to ones that ask autistic children to verbally describe something and rate the quality of the verbally described thing, that is like michelle dawson's visual iq for blind test.
I already told you what I think about how the numbers I being interpreted.
There are more autism subgroups than just HFA vs. LFA. An obvious ine of the groups which get's neglected a lot is girls, and when girls are taken into account it's clear something fishy is going on as they don't match the trends as males even when the general difference in male and female trends are taken into account. While I don't have all the data, my interpretation of this is that the female sample isn't representative of the full female autistic population. The most important group which may neglected are those who don't conform to traditional demographics but rather have traits which directly relate to what is being investigated, in the manner of neglecting the poor in poll about taxes because less of them have phones which are used to select samples. Here, assuming those who are more emotionally sensitive and autistic are less likely to be diagnosed because autistics are assumed to not be emotionally sensitive, it would result in data being skewed to autistics being on average less emotionally sensitive than the whole population actually is and the view get's reinforced.
1) No. Ultimately it's just as subjective as the observations of the physical world, only difference is it's trying to make claims on subjective states as well.
2) So?
3) Okay, there are plenty that do both which refute claims that autistic people are unemotional and whatnot.
_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes
Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html
06 Jan 2015, 8:55 pm
I have a feeling I may have Asperger; or rather I have ADD, anxiety, lack motor skills, slight OCD and social retardation. Choose your pick. Can't get tested for any of them anyways because nobody sees a point in it due to my everyday understanding how to cope with it, high marks, and cost for getting tested... They just think, "What's the point for getting diagnosed if you're already learning to deal with it yourself? Your grades in school are high so why do you need help?" I've given up with this case because it's true. I may have Aspergers, but I've learned to cope with it. (The problem is that I don't have a group of people that I belong in or can relate to in any way except for people with these same struggles related to the disorders above.)
06 Jan 2015, 10:36 pm
Toy_Soldier wrote:
I think calling the current situation 'male centric' is like calling testosterone 'male centric'.
Regardless of correlation, I'm a certain of one thing, and that even though testosterone appears to often factor in, autism is NOT testosterone. I'll leave it at that.
_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes
Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html
06 Jan 2015, 11:13 pm
Ganondox wrote:
Toy_Soldier wrote:
I think calling the current situation 'male centric' is like calling testosterone 'male centric'.
Regardless of correlation, I'm a certain of one thing, and that even though testosterone appears to often factor in, autism is NOT testosterone. I'll leave it at that.
No, it isn't, anymore than it is oestrogen or any other hormone.
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
06 Jan 2015, 11:13 pm
Tuttle wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
I think that overwhelming emotional distress due to contagion from other people is not really empathy, as it is self-centered response, the person focusing on one's own hyperemotional responses instead of other person, lacking cognitive empathy, and unable to engage in empathic behaviors. In a child who has such responses, it seems that they would appear hyperemotional often, but without other-oriented social empathic behaviors like comforting people, and probably not practical help due being overwhelmed by their own emotions. The whole thing seems like a low-level emotional contagion amplified by emotional dysregulation. The contagion itself is initial sign of affective empathy, but emotional dysregulation takes over quickly to prevent socially adaptive affective empathy that allows one to connect emotionally with others and strenghten relationships instead of emotional distress alone, such behaviors possibly alienating others in the process.
I would disagree that it is not empathy; as I do not define empathy as only things that are other-oriented social empathetic behavior. I do include affective empathy, and feeling how others feel in empathy. It is however not socially adaptive, I agree.
In my view, what I'm discussing is a potential subgroup of people (who I do not think have been studied, I haven't found studies on it), who have abnormally high affective empathy - such abnormally high affective empathy that how high it is on its own starts to cause both positive and negative effects, low cognitive empathy, and does not have socially adaptive empathy. They feel strong compassion, as well as feelings of others, but because of their emotional responses (positive and negative), their lack of cognitive empathy, and such, it being socially adaptive, is missing.
In some cases, people see compassion, and miss the fact that the person isn't showing it in any sort of normal way - I cannot say how frequently, just that I've seen this on more than one occurrence.
I think it would be interesting to actually do or find studies on people of this sort, and see if there is anything related to abnormally high affective empathy when it comes to actual studiable autism stuff.
There has been literature comparing personal distress and affective empathy and differentiating the two, you can look it up by googling these terms together.
There is no clear consensus that the recognized phenomena that you eggsperience and call empathy is really empathy.
What was earlier described about the tortured dog reaction seems like real empathy.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
06 Jan 2015, 11:17 pm
In order to identify a previously unrecognized group of people as autistic, there needs to be some observable behavioral criteria to recognize them and differentiate from normal and other disorders.
What behaviors differentiate this unrecognized group from recognized group?
That seems completely obscure right now.
Ganondox, I don't know what you mean about what you think about how the numbers are interpreted.
I don't even know what numbers you are talking about.
I also don't understand why you don't want to read the eggsisting literature on a topic even if it is not eggsacly what you are interested in, this unrecognized group of hypothetically autistic girls.
I found it useful to read a lot about social cognition and visual perception/attention in neurotypicals, autism, and other mental disorders, as I built up understanding of these topics for research.
The papers were not on the super specific effects I was studying, but it was critical to know the information in them.
_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!
Last edited by btbnnyr on 06 Jan 2015, 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
06 Jan 2015, 11:29 pm
btbnnyr wrote:
In order to identify a previously unrecognized group of people as autistic, there needs to be some observable behavioral criteria to recognize them and differentiate from normal and other disorders.
What behaviors differentiate this unrecognized group from recognized group?
That seems completely obscure right now.
Ganondox, I don't know what you mean about what you think about how the numbers are interpreted.
I don't even know what numbers you are talking about.
What behaviors differentiate this unrecognized group from recognized group?
That seems completely obscure right now.
Ganondox, I don't know what you mean about what you think about how the numbers are interpreted.
I don't even know what numbers you are talking about.
Btbnnyr, would you classify yourself as a behaviourist? Or not?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Special Interests (women) |
Yesterday, 2:05 pm |
| Having Autism |
11 Jul 2026, 11:01 pm |
| Autism influencers on IG, X, TikTok, etc. |
15 Jul 2026, 3:36 am |
